4 ms·

Seems like a clear wrong doing on SpaceX's side... Weird SpaceX would lay people off when by all accounts their business is doing fairly well?

by bnejad 12y ago

toomuchtodo 12y ago
Elon is probably cautious about cash flow after the Tesla Motors incident: http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_10727401 http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_10727401
TheHypnotist 12y ago
According to this article ( http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41428spacex-says-%E2%80%9Cheadcount-reduction%E2%80%9D-due-to-annual-reviews-not-layoffs http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41428spacex-s... ) they were firings, not layoffs. Which may throw a wrench in their lawsuit.
- goodJobWalrus 12y ago
  but how do you justify not paying the wages earned?
  - bnejad 12y ago
    Yeah this is really the worst part even they were actually firings.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  IANAL, but I don't think this is going to fly in court given that (4 times) more than 50 people were let go at once. If it looks like a layoff and quacks like a layoff, I don't think the judge or a jury is going to care what SpaceX calls it. Kind of surprised a company that is so on the ball technically would fuck something like this up; it is definitely going to end up costing them way more than 2 months severance to everyone (plus whatever they were owed -- some people claim they didn't even get that) would have.
  - gpm 12y ago
    In this case I think it might, I'm not a lawyer, but the relevant law seems to be this one (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1400-1408 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...), which defines layoff as > "Layoff" means a separation from a position for lack of funds or lack of work.
    - sokoloff 12y ago
      US Dept of Labor and the Federal WARN Act have specific requirements for employers over 100 employees where 50 or more are let go from a single location in a 30-day period: http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm Doesn't matter if they're layoffs for lack of work or performance-based firings: you still have to comply with the provisions of that law. (I have no knowledge whether SpaceX did or did not comply, of course.)
      - gpm 12y ago
        The article says that the suit is about a alleged "violation of California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.", and "The Cal WARN Act", not the Federal WARN Act. I have no knowledge of this lawsuit other then this article though.
        hga 12y ago
        The "not paying them wages earned before termination" would be a matter of state law, and with California having its own WARN Act, I presume the lawyers think it's best to sue in state court.
      - stillworking 12y ago
        http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/EmployerWARN09_2003.pdf http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/EmployerWARN09_2003.pdf The official employers guide to WARN states that people let go for cause are not counted under WARN. The SpaceX position seems to be: 1) We just did our yearly performance reviews 2) Low performers were fired 3) Since they were all let go for cause, WARN does not apply. Some people are claiming that it is a layoff and SpaceX is just trying to work around it. I'm imagining the SpaceX position here would be: 1) Layoffs are defined as letting employees go due to reduction in work or lack of money 2) SpaceX is experiencing neither of these 3) SpaceX plans to grow 20% this year; proof that there is no reduction in work 4) SpaceX has lots of open positions and is actively hiring; further proof that there is no reduction in work or lack of money
- krschultz 12y ago
  Well, the company always wants to say it is a performance based firing, that reduces the company unemployment insurance liability. However, the companies don't get the final say in the matter.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I think fired employees are eligible for unemployment, so I wouldn't think it would effect unemployment insurance liability. As far as I am aware, you are eligible for unemployment so long as you did not chose to leave.
    - jsight 12y ago
      Fired employees are not always eligible for unemployment: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits-contesting-employees-claim-30348.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits...
sliverstorm 12y ago
There's a host of possible reasons. They could have discovered they hired too many people, for example.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  "Oops, our bad. We're going to let you go, because we hired too many people for the amount of work we had, and on that note, since we didn't really have any work for you the last few weeks you were here, well, we're not going to pay you for that. And we're going to tell anyone, including press releases, that you were 'fired'."
ctdonath 12y ago
NASA is/was noted for releasing a large number of people after successful missions. Everything is going well overall, they just didn't need everyone around during long idle periods. Might presume SpaceX is doing the same: what do you do with >200 idle personnel? pay them to do nothing, or release them and hire as needed when the time comes again?
- AYBABTME 12y ago
  R&D? Ping pong?
- jscott0918 12y ago
  I don't think the problem is with laying off unnecessary staff. I think this is a notification and backwage issue. If someone works for you for two weeks, then gets fired, you can't just not pay them for the time worked. Also, in most states, you cannot lay off employees without cause (meaning without a specific issue with a single employees behavior or performance) without sufficient notice.
  - justin66 12y ago
    That's pretty much completely wrong, for better or worse. It's called at will employment. Edit: I wonder if the downvoters who have not bothered to comment realize that every state in the US except Montana has some form of at will employment. The person I was replying to couldn't be more wrong. (The very obvious claim about not being able to fail to pay people is of course true)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - rgbrenner 12y ago
      Edit: I wonder if the downvoters who have not bothered to comment realize that every state in the US except Montana has some form of at will employment. The person I was replying to couldn't be more wrong. You're being downvoted because you're wrong. At-will employment doesn't mean you can stiff your employees on backwages. It also doesn't mean you don't need to comply with Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) laws, which exist in many (most?) states. At-will employment doesn't mean the employer gets to do whatever they please.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
Mass firings under any and all conditions is how capital works these days.

Seems like a clear wrong doing on SpaceX's side... Weird SpaceX would lay people off when by all accounts their business is doing fairly well?

by bnejad 12y ago

Seems like a clear wrong doing on SpaceX's side... Weird SpaceX would lay people off when by all accounts their business is doing fairly well?

toomuchtodo 12y ago

Elon is probably cautious about cash flow after the Tesla Motors incident: http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_10727401 http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_10727401

TheHypnotist 12y ago

According to this article ( http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41428spacex-says-%E2%80%9Cheadcount-reduction%E2%80%9D-due-to-annual-reviews-not-layoffs http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41428spacex-s... ) they were firings, not layoffs. Which may throw a wrench in their lawsuit.

goodJobWalrus 12y ago
but how do you justify not paying the wages earned?
- bnejad 12y ago
  Yeah this is really the worst part even they were actually firings.
georgemcbay 12y ago
IANAL, but I don't think this is going to fly in court given that (4 times) more than 50 people were let go at once. If it looks like a layoff and quacks like a layoff, I don't think the judge or a jury is going to care what SpaceX calls it. Kind of surprised a company that is so on the ball technically would fuck something like this up; it is definitely going to end up costing them way more than 2 months severance to everyone (plus whatever they were owed -- some people claim they didn't even get that) would have.
- gpm 12y ago
  In this case I think it might, I'm not a lawyer, but the relevant law seems to be this one (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1400-1408 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...), which defines layoff as > "Layoff" means a separation from a position for lack of funds or lack of work.
  - sokoloff 12y ago
    US Dept of Labor and the Federal WARN Act have specific requirements for employers over 100 employees where 50 or more are let go from a single location in a 30-day period: http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm Doesn't matter if they're layoffs for lack of work or performance-based firings: you still have to comply with the provisions of that law. (I have no knowledge whether SpaceX did or did not comply, of course.)
    - gpm 12y ago
      The article says that the suit is about a alleged "violation of California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.", and "The Cal WARN Act", not the Federal WARN Act. I have no knowledge of this lawsuit other then this article though.
      - hga 12y ago
        The "not paying them wages earned before termination" would be a matter of state law, and with California having its own WARN Act, I presume the lawyers think it's best to sue in state court.
    - stillworking 12y ago
      http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/EmployerWARN09_2003.pdf http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/EmployerWARN09_2003.pdf The official employers guide to WARN states that people let go for cause are not counted under WARN. The SpaceX position seems to be: 1) We just did our yearly performance reviews 2) Low performers were fired 3) Since they were all let go for cause, WARN does not apply. Some people are claiming that it is a layoff and SpaceX is just trying to work around it. I'm imagining the SpaceX position here would be: 1) Layoffs are defined as letting employees go due to reduction in work or lack of money 2) SpaceX is experiencing neither of these 3) SpaceX plans to grow 20% this year; proof that there is no reduction in work 4) SpaceX has lots of open positions and is actively hiring; further proof that there is no reduction in work or lack of money
krschultz 12y ago
Well, the company always wants to say it is a performance based firing, that reduces the company unemployment insurance liability. However, the companies don't get the final say in the matter.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I think fired employees are eligible for unemployment, so I wouldn't think it would effect unemployment insurance liability. As far as I am aware, you are eligible for unemployment so long as you did not chose to leave.
  - jsight 12y ago
    Fired employees are not always eligible for unemployment: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits-contesting-employees-claim-30348.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits...

sliverstorm 12y ago

There's a host of possible reasons. They could have discovered they hired too many people, for example.

FireBeyond 12y ago
"Oops, our bad. We're going to let you go, because we hired too many people for the amount of work we had, and on that note, since we didn't really have any work for you the last few weeks you were here, well, we're not going to pay you for that. And we're going to tell anyone, including press releases, that you were 'fired'."

ctdonath 12y ago

NASA is/was noted for releasing a large number of people after successful missions. Everything is going well overall, they just didn't need everyone around during long idle periods. Might presume SpaceX is doing the same: what do you do with >200 idle personnel? pay them to do nothing, or release them and hire as needed when the time comes again?

AYBABTME 12y ago
R&D? Ping pong?
jscott0918 12y ago
I don't think the problem is with laying off unnecessary staff. I think this is a notification and backwage issue. If someone works for you for two weeks, then gets fired, you can't just not pay them for the time worked. Also, in most states, you cannot lay off employees without cause (meaning without a specific issue with a single employees behavior or performance) without sufficient notice.
- justin66 12y ago
  That's pretty much completely wrong, for better or worse. It's called at will employment. Edit: I wonder if the downvoters who have not bothered to comment realize that every state in the US except Montana has some form of at will employment. The person I was replying to couldn't be more wrong. (The very obvious claim about not being able to fail to pay people is of course true)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    Edit: I wonder if the downvoters who have not bothered to comment realize that every state in the US except Montana has some form of at will employment. The person I was replying to couldn't be more wrong. You're being downvoted because you're wrong. At-will employment doesn't mean you can stiff your employees on backwages. It also doesn't mean you don't need to comply with Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) laws, which exist in many (most?) states. At-will employment doesn't mean the employer gets to do whatever they please.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

Mass firings under any and all conditions is how capital works these days.